Endgame and the expectations that the term has engendered has a become a restriction rather than a guideline. I say this because everyone enjoys their endgame differently. To me that term just means an activity with which communities of like minded individuals can gravitate towards and enjoy together even after already beating it. To others its a pure skinner box they can return to for easy gratification after a hard day.

That said, if jumping puzzles and minidungeons are your endgame then more power to you since that's exactly what ANet is focusing on. For those like me who are hoping for improvements in sPvP and WvWvW we're kind of getting the short end of the stick.

This quote kind of gives value to my theory that Anet paid guru to amass all crybabies on this site so they get less tears on the officials.

It's just a theory mind you, but I'm still itchy about the super twist in the moderation policy that happened right after launch; this forum's moderation was super strict against crybabies until 1 second in launch, at which point it suddenly became the summit of haters.
I still recall the first 2 weeks of launch when this forum section had 2 pages full of hate threads about the "exotic grind" with people insulting each other daily and throwing smack at Anet.

If I'm wrong then why not creating a feedback/complaint forum?
When a subject is widely debated it usually deserves its own section - it's kind of counterproductive to have a "general talk" section filled with complaints, unless you've been incentivated to do so.

My quote reflects how Guru always worked. You haven't been around through the history of Guru, but this has not changed. Even before the creation of the official forums, Anet Devs would only be able to take from ideas that were posted to official locations (the wiki). Ideas would be discussed here, then posted to the wiki. Or at least this was the ideal way things would go, nothing ever works as smoothly as that.

Before release, the only things we had were speculation. The tone of the forum has drifted back and forth many times as the game was developed with periods of rainbows and periods of brimstone. The game is new, people are realizing it wasn't what they thought it was, and they are talking about it. Hence the current period of brimstone which would be completely expected upon release of a major title. Everyone can't be satisfied. Maybe this will change? The game will either evolve in a way that satisfies these people, or too much time will pass and they will move on to another game and give up on GW2 ever meeting their expectations. Then new discussions on other issues will pop up.

General talk, is for general talk. It is, by and far, the least productive section of Guru and should not be the place you look to see specific discussions. We have subforums for more refined, specific discussions and try to keep these to a minimum as the dilute the poster population. TA is a catch-all for everything that doesn't really deserve a section of its own. It usually is filled with threads that arch overall design decisions that don't fit anywhere else and tend to be much more negative than the discussions revolving around a specific class or gametype. Move out of TA if you want to see quality posts and get in touch with the actual community.

If the moderation policy changed (it didn't) it changed so that we are more strict on "bad posts." Amusingly enough, the "rainbow" posts have a higher number of "bad posts" than the "brimstone" ones currently.

To add to Arquenya's post, one important thing about horizontal games is that they are kept balanced by limiting the number of choices available at any one time. For example, GW1 had an 8-slot skill bar. In MtG, this is done in another way: your deck needs to be at least 60 cards and have at most 4 cards of each kind (except certain cards). You are however allowed to have as big of a deck as you want... But you don't want to go far above 60, because that makes your deck less predictable and that in turn makes it harder to control it and play your strategy.

GW1 spun out of control in a way, because of power creep and because the number of combinations were too many to balance. The MtG method is in a way self-balancing, and that is a very important concept to horizontal design. Another example of self-balancing mechanics would be some of the most well balanced skills in GW1:

Frenzy: Probably the best general IAS in the game, but one that viciously punished you it if you use it at the wrong moment. Not only does this self-balance against the user, but also against the opponents, who are (doubly) rewarded for keeping a lookout for people using Frenzy.

Reversal of Fortune: Like any prot, this one is wasted if cast on a character that doesn't come under attack. But even more so in this case, because the skill has a potentially massive heal that triggers only if you cast it well.

Diversion: The skill that pretty much defines much of what mesmers were in GW1, it yields a massive reward if used right and is just a waste of its quite long casting time if used wrong.

In all of these cases, the actual numbers were not what kept these skills balanced, it was the mechanics behind them that did it. Of course, a 100% IAS in Frenzy instead of 33% would be unbalanced, but removing the double damage would be a much worse hit against the skill.

Why am I blabbing on about skill balancing when the question was how much horizontal progression there should be? Aha, because it's intimately connected. There must be self-balancing mechanics involved. There must be tradeoffs. Tradeoffs that feed back into the use of the skill, the construction of the deck, etc. If you run out of tradeoffs, or if they don't work, you should stop putting out mechanics. In other words, there can be as much horizontal progression as the mechanics allow, and there can be as much mechanics as the tradeoffs allow.

Very good post. And what you describe in your last paragraph is one of the main Problems of horizontal Progression: Every new Option requires meticulous balancing, something that takes a lot of time and often requires innovative thinking. There is a sharp limit on how much horizontal content you can make, and that directly conflicts with the design philosophy of current MMORPGs, which revolves around providing as much content as possible to keep people playing.

Maybe a major design shift away from the "Theme-Park-MMO" towards a user-created-content mentality could help (read about that recently).

Nevertheless, I think a pure horizontal focus will not work in games with a PVE focus. The appeal of PVE is often based around being able to beat tougher foes, the method is not terribly important. Horizontal Progression works in player-player Interaction, be it PVP or showing off skins or titles. MOBA's have purely horizontal progression systems, and if other genre's focus more on player interaction instead of PVE, we might see more of it.

How far should horizontal progression go then? I understand that people want horizontal progression because it doesn't take them any work to get results other than learning the basics and just a bit more. How much of horizontal progression is enough? GW1 had so much different skills added throughout it's lifetime that it became convoluted and some of the skills were useless and/or outdated. Besides of skill utility increase, what other horizontal progression could there be added? New kind of problems most likely, but how much of that can be kept up without rehashing old mechanics? One of the good points of horizontal progression would be that all new and old content would be relevant and coming in to do anything would require no prerequisites. I think a game going for pure horizontal progression would require some serious innovation and implementation that no one has even given thought about yet. It sounds great on paper and as an ideal, but getting it to work on an MMO that's supposed to draw millions of players in is not very likely.

To add to Arquenya's post, one important thing about horizontal games is that they are kept balanced by limiting the number of choices available at any one time. For example, GW1 had an 8-slot skill bar. In MtG, this is done in another way: your deck needs to be at least 60 cards and have at most 4 cards of each kind (except certain cards). You are however allowed to have as big of a deck as you want... But you don't want to go far above 60, because that makes your deck less predictable and that in turn makes it harder to control it and play your strategy.

GW1 spun out of control in a way, because of power creep and because the number of combinations were too many to balance. The MtG method is in a way self-balancing, and that is a very important concept to horizontal design. Another example of self-balancing mechanics would be some of the most well balanced skills in GW1:

Frenzy: Probably the best general IAS in the game, but one that viciously punished you it if you use it at the wrong moment. Not only does this self-balance against the user, but also against the opponents, who are (doubly) rewarded for keeping a lookout for people using Frenzy.

Reversal of Fortune: Like any prot, this one is wasted if cast on a character that doesn't come under attack. But even more so in this case, because the skill has a potentially massive heal that triggers only if you cast it well.

Diversion: The skill that pretty much defines much of what mesmers were in GW1, it yields a massive reward if used right and is just a waste of its quite long casting time if used wrong.

In all of these cases, the actual numbers were not what kept these skills balanced, it was the mechanics behind them that did it. Of course, a 100% IAS in Frenzy instead of 33% would be unbalanced, but removing the double damage would be a much worse hit against the skill.

Why am I blabbing on about skill balancing when the question was how much horizontal progression there should be? Aha, because it's intimately connected. There must be self-balancing mechanics involved. There must be tradeoffs. Tradeoffs that feed back into the use of the skill, the construction of the deck, etc. If you run out of tradeoffs, or if they don't work, you should stop putting out mechanics. In other words, there can be as much horizontal progression as the mechanics allow, and there can be as much mechanics as the tradeoffs allow.

People need to stop making underhanded or snide remarks about the person they are talking to. Failing to do so will result in infractions as it is quite obviously getting in the way of civil discussion.

Don't get angry if someone doesn't agree with you, and stop rising to bait and baiting the other person back.

That's short-sighted, "don't worry, be happy" thinking. Everything you say is absolutely true now, but it will certainly not remain true for the foreseeable future. Ascended gear won't remain stuck in the ghetto of the deeper levels of a single dungeon forever. Why would ANet invest resources into creating gear intended only for one special purpose? Eventually there will be other dungeons and even open-world PvE content that will require the new capabilities. New infusions will appear and new foes that can't be fought without them. Ultimately, at some point, there will be content that we will not be able to access without upgraded gear, just as it is impractical to venture into Orr in starter armor.

Why should we stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the way things are now is the way they will always be, forever and anon, amen? We can see this is coming, though we don't know exactly how or when, and there is nothing wrong with being concerned about how it will work out and how the changes might affect the way existing content is played.

I dont know the future obviously so you might turn out to be right but I honestly dont think its as much a certainity as you make it to be and I'll tell you why!

Gw2 isnt trying to be a vertical progression its trying to be both a vertical progression and a horizontal progression game at the same time! doing content that requires specific gear would gate content which goes counter to the horizontal progression phylosofy. But more then that Content was designed in such a way to indicate that this might very well be on Arenanet's mind!

Take FoTM for example. From level 1 - level 10 there is absolutely no need to have ascended armor at all! Then You start needing Ascended armor thus you could argue that gating is introduced. However unlike other MMOs where such gating would deny you content in GW2 Arenanet had the brilliant idea to instead of gating content they gate difficulty!

This is crutial I believe! to implement vertical progression you need to gate, there needs to be a motivator for players to get better gear but in case of GW2 they solved the issue through the level system! everyone is free to play all that FoTM offers but at the same time if you're a cometitive player who likes vertical progression you have an insentive to do your thing! while the horizontal player who cares only about experiancing content isnt cut out at all!

The second reason has got to do with FoTM itself, its a dungeon thats infinitily expandable ... why do that? I might be wrong but I dont know of any MMO that has ever implemented a dungeon that keeps getting expanded in future content updates! why do that unless you actually intend the whole dungeon to be a central type of content and why have it as a certral type of content if you dont intend this to be its own play style and in this specific case to have it as a progressive treadmill for those who want it (treadmill is from getting better infusions not from getting better gear). Infusion itself is not exactly powerful, its all about the agony resistance ! having +5 to vitality is really nothing in terms of offensive power! eating food gives you multiple times that! but the agony resistance, now thats a real difference yet thanks to the design it leave any content outside FoTM untouched. Think its clever!

Of course it could all just be a co-incidence and next upgrade they could have monsters in the open world that have the agony mechanic but If they intended for the progression system to affect everyone why introduce the agony at all? why not have a regular gear treadmill? It think its just so they can keep the game both horizontal and vertical and provide content for both play styles!

But don't you need certain materials from FoW to get the armor? And you need them quite many as well... so quite a bit grinding of FoW. Of course you could get the materials from the trader, but that would cost a lot of ingame currency. Now you can do all kinds of things to get that currency, but I'm pretty sure it would involve some kind of a grind. And this is almost the same as in GW2, only that the 'prestige' armors don't require any valuable material, just the hefty amount of currency, which you can get without dungeons. Sure, repetition is involved here too, but that's the point of 'prestige' armor, you work for it.

Yes, exactly. That is why the comparison between GW1 FoW armor and GW2 dungeon armor is not accurate (not to mention the difference in prestige between them). A better comparison would be GW1 racial EotN armor vs. GW2 dungeon armor. Robsy didn't even play GW1 so he doesn't know what to compare to, so it's ok.

What do you expect them to do? Make it into a single-player RPG? The logic that goes through peoples' minds is quite ridiculous

Why would you assume I'm trying to 'defeat' you? Almost all of my previous posts have been about why I think Arenanet has done well with the decisions they've made regarding Guild Wars 2. Now I could spew some nonsense about how you'd rather attack the way I talk about the game and want nothing more than hostile conflict. I'd personally rather get into talking about the game, rather than playing the psychiatrist game with you.

"In my opinion" is always useful when discussing things on forums, by the way They put in diminishing returns because people would burn through the content and then what? 'EUGGHHH WE HAVE NO ENDGAME ANET! Y U NO MAKE ENDGAME?! EUGHHH WOW CLONE LOLOLOL.' I mean, really? As for GW1, for FoW armour, where would you get the ectos? You had to farm/grind in order to get the materials just so that you could obtain the armour. Thus, you repeated content, which was mindlessly boring, yet people still did it anyway.

My bad. I see my mistake now. Guild Wars 1 is clearly selling Epic Firestorm that causes 120 seconds of burning and does 128 damage on hit. That is only achievable through the cash shop.
Let's actually look at what pay to win means: "Games that let you buy better gear or allow you to make better items than everyone else at a faster rate, and then makes the game largely unbalanced even for people who have skill in the game without paying."

Games that let you buy better gear? Well you can't buy gear from the cash shop/gem store in either Guild Wars games.
Allows you to make better items than everyone else at a faster rate? Well, sure, you have crafting boosts, but considering how almost everyone has reached level 80 now and has 400 crafting, it's not really a problem.
Do people who pay for things in the cash shop have an advantage over people who don't, regardless of skill? No. It seems fairly evenly matched when it comes to running dungeons or playing against one another.
Therefore, it is not pay to win, regardless of how you want to spin it in your mind.

I personally think you're confusing the word 'grind' with, I don't know, generally playing the game. What does it matter if you level up slowly? This isn't a racing a game. There is no winning when you get to level 80. If you just explore the world and do what you want when you want, you'll soon find yourself having loads of fun and getting to 80 in no time at all. Heck, I was messing around with a friend yesterday and I went from 22 to 30 without even realising it. I realised I missed out on some content I wanted to experience on that particular character, so I'm going to a lower level area so that I can see what it has to offer.
What does it matter if there are a hundred level 80 characters and I'm still level 23? Were people worried when that one player reached level 80 before everyone else when the game was initially released? No. Not one bit. Everyone played the game, enjoyed the content, and are still doing so. It had no impact on them whatsoever. He never won World vs World simply because he was level 80. He never destroyed the economy or became unbeatable. If you honestly play the game and think to yourself: 'I MISSED THAT ORE NODE! I'M SO FAR BEHIND EVERYONE ELSE! END OF THE WORLD! NOOO000OOOOO111!!!' then you're clearly not having much fun at all haha.

As for the animation of the ore node, I just had to laugh. There is no deeper reason behind the mining animation, aside from showing you what your character is doing. It has nothing to do with stress levels. It's to provide people with a sense of immersion. I'd find it quite boring and weird to just walk over an ore node and instantly get the material. I mean, if that was the case, why would we even have walking animations in the first place? Why aren't we all just ragdolls gliding along the ground? I honestly think you're just trying to pick holes in the game and complain about them on here rather than actually playing the game. That goes for 75% of the people complaining about the game on these forums as well.

Okay, so you buy gems, convert it to gold, buy the crafting materials on the trading post, get to 400 crafting and level 80. Then? You just spent $20 or however much it is to get to level 80 with experiencing as little content as possible. Well done. You didn't play a game whatsoever - you just threw money at it for some big numbers. To be honest, if I got to level 80 in an evening, I'd feel pretty disappointed. I love the feeling of my character progressing as he/she levels up. I can go to new areas and see more of the world because I worked to get to that level. So the guy who is level 80 now through buying gems can go wherever he wants before me. I care... why?

Did I say that they thought that they should make a single-player RPG? Let's see... No, I didn't say that!

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable or valid. This kind of dishonesty not only undermines rational discourse, it also harms one's own position because it brings your credibility into question - if you're willing to misrepresent your opponent's argument in the negative, might you also be willing to exaggerate your own in the positive?"

See, this is the kind of thing that makes me think that you are thinking about our discussion in terms of winning or losing instead of finding a truth. That, and completely ignoring anything the many points that invalidate your entire reasoning. For examples, see: almost my entire previous post, and this one.
I can point out the other fallacies you committed in your post as well, but I'm going to do everyone a favor and not post 7-8 links describing how to not carry on an argument. Let's instead get down to business.

They do put in diminishing returns in order to slow people down, agreed, which is also what I said. If they removed it, I agree that people would probably complain about endgame because GW2 has very little enjoyable content. GW1 were in a similar situation, except that endgame content was actually enjoyable (especially after the arrival of SF and the conversion of Tombs into a PvE dungeon). Going for FoW would of course entail grind (at least initially, unless you were a capable PvP player, in which case a couple of celestial sigils would buy you a suit), but it was a highly personal choice since it was all about wearing a specific armor skin. FoW didn't mean any sort of stats advantage whatsoever. The only comparable items in GW2 are legendary weapons, and they do not only confer an advantage over exotics, but are the only items ever guaranteed to be best-in-slot, meaning that you actually grind for something that is meaningful in terms of game mechanics.

I don't know where you got your pants on head definition of pay2win. Mine is: a situation where you can pay to, permanently or temporarily, elevate your efficiency within a nonstrict subset of a game, with the exclusion of paying for the right to access content (the last part is there because buying the game or paying a sub fee for it is not pay2win). Efficiency defined as the rate at which you progress towards your goals in the (nonstrict subset of) the game. Basically, if everyone else has to struggle with PvP matches until they get enough points to unlock skills, a skill unlock pack would be pay2win - for the subgame of unlocking PvP skills.
Even if that was not so, of course, the GW2 xp/karma/etc. boosts fulfills your definition exactly.

If you (or anyone else) were the only level 23 character and everyone else was level 80, there would not be a problem. Slow leveling is not equal to grind. In fact most people don't know what grind is, they think it has something to do with repetition of content... It does, but that's not the definition of it. Grind is things that you would normally not do, but that you do anyway, for the explicit reason of either accelerating vertical progression, or activating it (such as doing FotM for the ascended gear and infusions instead of for the challenge). That usually means repeating highly rewarding content over and over, such as the basically identical kill X of Y quests in WoW, the labyrinth aatxes in GW1, FotM in GW2, and so on.
Correct, I'm not having much fun in GW2 (I thought we already had established that).

Yes, there is a deeper reason for the mining animation. I already explained it to you. Comparing it with the walking animation says nothing, because the walking animation doesn't set the speed of walking (proven by that some characters seem to moonwalk and glide around quite a lot while walking).

Regarding that guy who invested another $20, you say you don't care about him... Well neither would I. Why would I care? He is not me. And that is, of course, entirely beside the point. Because the point is that he could be me, or rather, I could be him. Her. I could invest $20 on my level 1 character and turn it into a level 80 and be able to access the content that I want to access, not the content that ANet wants me to access. The $20 puts the choice into my hands. It buys me free of the work simulator that you "love" the feeling of - without realizing that it is designed to make you tell yourself that.

"This is going to be an interesting resource for future developers."
"we're bringing you back to reality."
"joining my camp"
"so, hey, I guess you can consider me a good samaritan in a way"
"And the comment I get flung my way for my efforts now"
"when one of my camp"
"we tend to put forth very sensible ideas"
"I had the balls to man up and do it"

Accounts of acerbic treatment of counter-positions: (In direct hypocrisy of
"What we get is, to say it again, insults, fallacies, character assassination, and an increasingly desperate attempt to just get rid of us."

"Oh no, logic! Logic is like the kryptonite of faithfuls like yourself."
""I like vertical progression. And you're a poopoo head who should get out of my forum and give me a walled garden community!""
"You're that desperate"And for the sake of your mental well being""Since I can see that you're trying so hard to delude yourself. And that's what these screams for a walled garden are about.""Instead, you're hanging around the forum all day at the expense of everything else, and making desperate attacks""I doubt you'll counter this. I don't think you have it in you.""you're hanging onto your delusion""you don't want to admit that you were wrong. Because that makes you look stupid."
"Where is your shame? Where is your self-respect? Why do you do this to yourself?""When will you come to your senses?""bend over and take it up the butt."

Notes: Author calls out dramatically for a logical discussion, but speaks primarily with pathos. He asks for logic, when possibly inciting rage. This would seem self-defeating, but the author is a smart man. He must therefore actually desire the emotional response. The "poopoo head" response. It is interesting too that he labels the counter position "faithfuls" and "hopefuls," this suggests that what they believe is fantasy, and not logic or facts. While also seemingly elevating those who agree with him as followers of his camp, akin to him in his logical glory.

If above is Ethos, let's look for Logos, or logic.. in his post:

"vertical progression takes away from displays of player skill only to offer a placebo effect in its place that convinces bad players that they're good"
" gambling aspects of the mystic forge are exploitative, you can't deny that keeping the amount of money in players hands and then putting artificially high prices on things in order for them to buy gems from the cash shop to convert to gold is exploitative, you can't deny that the taxes themselves are exploitative. Guild Wars 2 is a cynical example of exploitation, and how some people just like to bend over and take it up the butt."

Note: The last is more pathos than logos, since it doesn't explain why it is exploitative. A missed opportunity considering the RNG gamble of MMO's can be explained as such with some basic psychology education, but I wanted to cite it when it was almost there.

Opinion: The author may not be a deliberate troll, or if he is a very good one (10/10), but his delivery is toxic and not likely to create the discussion he believes he champions.

Opinion on Game: I'm still having fun, but I represent the 1%~ of RPers, so my opinion doesn't represent a lot of others. I expect RNG grinds in any MMO, and simply don't play enough for this nature of the beast to dwell in my head like a parasite. I have several 80's, exotics.. even got my ascended ring, but I also prefer Horizontal progression, like Wolf, even if I don't wish to abandon this game anytime soon. Ascended gear was not hatched from some A-net scheme to ruin the lives of their players, but because there was actually a surprisingly (I'd say) large demand for more character progression. A-net has designed the game with the intentions of a revenue despite F2P, and that isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it is necessary. It's not pay-to-win, so I am happy. You don't need legendaries, and they're depreciating in awe as they become more common, so I don't truly understand why people head-desk and grind for them, a personal decision for a little graphic they don't need, and then blame A-net for the trouble they put themselves in. I think the major thing that has shown me that A-net cares about its players is amount of new content they are churning out with a relatively small staff. The holiday event and Karka event have been enormous, and they really surprised me. I can say I'm happy to see what will come this christmas.

This game is not without its flaws, and I don't play it solely, but I maintain faith that it will remain fun, and can improve. So yes, call me a horrible faithful, Dusk. Label me as a terrible, delusional person who will call you names like a two-year old and is only on this community to weigh it down, Tell me that I am incapable of logical arguments. And be thankful that you can't be punched through the internet for insulting me so deeply when you don't know a thing about me.

We appreciate how hard you try in demonstrating to us novel ways in which we should be disappointed with this game - especially considering that review was written as a "first impressions" sort of thing in August, and failing to take into account of other reviewers such as Carol Pinchefsky (also on the great and most reliable source Forbes), or how Mr. Kain ended going from skeptical to "appreciative"/"fan of Anet" as he pointed it out himself, two months down the road.

Please excuse me, I'm going to go play this awfully non-innovative game some more because I enjoy it due to my [insert whatever problem you think I have]. I hope you have a good night.

If skill is so completely absolutely 100% irrelevant, why does the same dungeon, with the same equipment tier (full exotic), take 20 minutes and zero repairs with my guild and 90 minutes + 10 silver repair fee with a pug?
Because most random players are *ing awful, that's why, despite having exactly the same numbers as my guild party.

Not going to bother with the rest of your copy/pasted ego-trip.

Also, basing a review on the first twelve levels is absolutely laughable. But hey, it's Forbes. They must be right.

GW2 is a good game, but obviously not what you wanted or expected it to be. You keep posting the things you don't like, do you think by doing this that GW2 will suddenly become the game you want?

Anyway, I do agree that initially I felt movement in combat was slow....but I've gotten used to the pace, and used to the dodge rolling. I disagree that it doesn't require player skill, of course it does otherwise people would never be downed or dead. It does require quick reactions, and no amount of armor stats will help with lack of skill.

I enjoy the game, and I rarely ever post on here, because I am mostly (besides being generally busy in my life) having fun playing the game.

In a good game, a game that has horizontal progression, you can't count on numbers to solve your problems. This is why I think that the vertical progression preachers haven't played a game like Grand Theft Auto in their life, since they'd be sent crying home about how the game punishes them for making poor choices, or for being bad at the game. How about VVVVVV? They'd likely throw their computers across the room. Even Bomberman would likely fill them with self-loathing.

You seem to be wringing a fallacy with quite a bit of gusto since, by sentence structure, you seem to imply that "a good game" is a game with only horizontal progression which is a completely indefensible statement; there are critically acclaimed games of all shapes and types and you, good sir, have no say on what anyone else on this world considers a good game. Stat progression, ie vertical progression, has been a staple of Western and Eastern RPGs for a long, long time. The metrovania genre, and two series to which the name can be attributed, have always had vertical "get stronger" progression, and I'm almost certain you're going to find critically acclaimed games in either of the above stated genres.

The issue isn't vertical progression, the issue is endless and/or gating progression. The "endless" is a problem for MMOs because they don't tend to have "an end" and "gating" has been notorious in many franchises by forcing gear checks to even view/experience content (ie. the treadmill), and while the former is a valid concern and one that people are more than free to dislike (like raspberry), the latter is as of so far a nonstarter in this scenario because the only content currently provided has no such "gear check" on experiencing the content or getting the best rewards (not even an exotic check). What we do have is an issue of stupid tiering on entry, which will be going away to a large degree soon, and limiting everything to a single area of the game, forcing people to do something they may not necessarily enjoy.

DuskWolf, on 29 November 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

Do you enjoy being bad and kind of pathetic? With a little practise, you could be amazing! I play Mass Effect 3 on multi-player, and I suffer with no less than three debilitating disabilities. So basically, a seriously disabled person is calling vertical progression fans on being more than a little bit shamelessly bad. And your response is?

That you couldn't hope to piece together a post without resorting to "calling out" people if your life depended on it. That's not how you structure an argument in which you wish for someone to take you seriously. It is not a discussion, it is mudslinging and it is boring to read.

by far the worst thing are the crybabies on the forum,who can't find the uninstall button.

What annoys me on the forums are people who can only see two extremes, "either love the game unreservedly or GTFO".

People are allowed to critique a game and still enjoy it, and the point of Tyian Assembly is to discuss the game in general, the good and the bad, though I would say some people go about 'discussion' the wrong way.